elapid said:
After such a good post, now this rubbish.
The coverage on Thorpe's drug investigation was a media show, but that's not Thorpe's fault. Once again, l'Equipe leaked a story from the AFLD which anyone should be critical about. The AFLD-l'Equipe relationship was highly unethical because it bypassed measures put in place to protect athletes from false positive results. Except for cycling, positive results are only announced when both A and B samples are positive, not after a "non-negative" A sample. This is what happened with Thorpe and this is why he, the ASADA, WADA and FINA were so critical of the "French labs". Thorpe was investigated by both the ASADA and WADA for testosterone and luteinizing hormone and these were dismissed. Due process and found innocent.
Agree with you about Thorpe. I knew all that you said about him, my point was more or less to highlight the fact the media does not inform the general public with all the information. Information that is crucial to come to a balanced conclusion. Like what you mentioned above, more people conclude like I illustrated, "the French labs are dodgy", without your explanation, which is correct, the lack of info and perspective can lead to dodgy conclusions.
elapid said:
AFL and NRL positives = almost always marijuana and ecstasy. Social drugs, not PEDs. Unless it affects their job, they shouldn't be testing for social drugs IMO. Social drugs do not equal PEDs. Ben Cousins did his time and rehabilitated from a coke addiction. A social drug with a big social problem for Cousins. He should have been given a second chance, just like any of us if we make a mistake. And this was a mistake, unlike the PEDs that we are mostly concerned with on this forum. He was young, rich and arrogant, got hooked on cocaine, and then did some mightily stupid things. He has since cleaned up, been on the sidelines for over a year and done his time, and is now redeeming for his addiction. Johns = ecstasy, another social drug.
Could say the same about Wendell Sailor and his cocaine incident in South Africa. But he was caught and suspended because there was testing. Cousins was never suspended by the AFL, only his team because of social pressure. My point, and it wasn't clear, was that the AFL and NRL do very little testing. The Broncos do about 90 tests a year in house. Thats it. Like
patswana pointed they don't screen for EPO as it is too expensive (administration claim that I don't buy). Johns was tested 11 times in his entire career. He admitted he knew how to get away with recreational drugs, so why not PEDs? Yes Cousins deserved a second chance (not by his long suffering girlfriend he did a runner on) but if the gooses at the Weagles base at Subiaco pulled their heads in they would have kept their 2 most gifted players and fulfilled an almost certain football dynasty. They didn't and are now wooden spoon contenders. They should have been testing for social drugs because failure to do so can ruin players careers and teams competitive advantage.
patswana said:
That is because they do little or no testing for PEDs in AFL & NRL. AFL has never ever done a single test for Epo. And according to people at ASADA, the teams are advised when they will be tested for PEDs like steroids a couple of weeks in advance.
If you think players like Cousins & Kerr who are built like Ben Johnson but have the endurance of Haile Gebreselassie are not using PEDs, then you are completely dreaming. And if you think Cousins just made a little mistake with recreational drugs, then you haven't been reading the papers. Don't you recall his involvement with Mainwaring? What do you think he was delivering to him that fateful night?
Agree with this. If the testing doesn't catch big name stars doing social drugs what hope does it have of catching the major PEDs that can help win a finals playoff spot or worse, get you through a GF? Rugby League players today don't look the same as guys from the 1980s. They're bigger, faster, lower body fat levels and stronger. Think of Anthony Watmough for starters. Then there are the freaks at the AFL and European football leagues. The games are very fast these days. Almost too fast.
elapid said:
Why the fascination with social drugs in sports? Do we think that young and rich sportsmen are above the same behaviour that most of us had when we were in our teens and 20s? Hell, they have even more opportunity because they have the money, are showered with attention, and get all the A-list party invites. They are just as susceptible to the pressures and desires we all face at one time or another. The fact that the AFL and NRL are testing for social drugs is just making a mockery of the role models that they want every player to be: if they didn't test for social drugs, then the public would not know about their social drug use, and they would be the role models that the administration so desperately wants. Look at Boonen: Belgium announces out-of-competition positives, France and most other countries do not. So everyone knows of Boonen's indiscretions, but French riders could be happily snorting away in a social setting and face no court of public opinion or recriminations. Yet here we are worrying about social drug use in sportspeople when in the last few months AFL and NRL players have been accused of rape, glassing and beating their girlfriends, defecating on hotel room floors, and driving under the influence. Almost all of these incidents were alcohol fueled. Now tell me where the problem is and where does social drug use rate in all of this?
Agree, there is a big focus on social drug use. Given the average intelligence of most NRL, AFL and Union players, I'm not surprised at what happens. They bond by drinking. Then drink far too much. Its fun sometimes and most behave themselves, others go way too far. I've lost count of the number of incidents. Greg Bird comes to mind. I didn't like that the papers threw everything bar the kitchen sink at the guy and so did the bloggers on there websites. He deserved his day in court and until then, I reserved judgment. Brett Stewart on the other hand was given every courtesy imaginable, with it even suggested the girl he (allegedly) sexually assaulted made up her story. No commentary was available on any articles regarding Stewart. Not one. It's been ignored and I believe will probably disappear altogether when the court case arrives.
When I've been very fit, by my own personal standards, I've gone out with mates and drunk towards a reasonable amount. From experience I've consumed amounts, that aren't excessive, but still enough to get me past tipsy when I wasn't as fit. Amounts that my friends who are 3 to 5 inches and 25-60 kilos heavier than I am (I'm 5'7" and 65kg) were close to being wasted on. I found I would wake @ 8am after 5 hours sleep and would not have any hangover and was fine for the entire day. My mates aren't the same (probably because they're fat and lazy...metabolism and muscle thing). My point is that I find it hard to believe that I could drink more and be less affected by it than pro footballers who we've illustrated must be blind drunk to behave the way they have. In my opinion its reasonable to suspect there is a portion poping god knows what on a regular basis to supplement their alcohol consumption and end up totally plastered.
Where is the problem? It's a behavioural problem, the same as using PEDs. Just as the NRL and AFL booze problems have a history steming from a team drinking culture, cycling has a PED problem originating from Omerta and the system wide acceptance that you had to dope to win let alone compete. The mentality is the same, the drug of choice is different. Psychologically and neurologically they are addictions and ingrained cognitive acceptable behaviours. The problem is the systems and structures that created and fostered these addictions are in charge of policing and correcting them. I fail to see how the same type of thinking that created the problem can find a solution and successfully counter the issue. For the record, on a legal standing I believed Boonen should have raced and am glad he was allowed to. But get the guy some help.
elapid said:
Lastly, to change tack a little, I have always wondered why a cortisone or local anesthetic injection into a painful joint or muscle is not considered performance enhancing. If it takes away the pain and allows an athlete to perform at a higher level than their injury would have permitted, then isn't this performance enhancing? In addition, from an athlete's health perspective which is one reason for the testing for PEDs, the continued activity on a joint or muscle in which the pain has been masked would result in further damage and deterioration to this joint or muscle and hence risk the well-being of the athlete (not life, but definitely limb).
I have found it odd *** well. I tend to suspect its more NFL and NHL that wander into this territory and apart from naming a few teams and big players, I simply do not know enough. My concern is unsafe health practices. If you're injured don't play. Any credible doctor or medic who would think there is a valid ethical reason to soften the pain, is someone I wouldn't whole heartedly trust. Team pressure explains part of it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram